IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.12. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.4006 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Running at K.K.Road, Villupuram .. Appellant Vs. 1. Mangayarkarasi 2.Elangovan 3. Basklar .. Respondents . . . Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the award and decree dated 31.07.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.156 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court ), Villupuram. . . . For Appellant : Mr.S.Vadivel For respondents : Mr. V.Babu and L.Muthusamy (R1 & R2) R3-Exparte . . . J U D G M E N T
The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.07.2007 made in M.C.O.P No.156 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court ), Villupuram.
2. The Tribunal, in this case, has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest at 7.5%. The deceased in this case, Aravind Ganesh @ Aravind is a 13 year old boy, studying 6th standard. He was riding a bicycle on 03.10.2003. when he was hit by a bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The bus is insured with the appellant. In that accident, Aravind sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Government Hospital at Villupuram. He, however, died on the way to the hospital.
3. In the appeal, the finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant’s bus and the liability fixed on the appellant to compensate the claimants is not disputed and the same is confirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the quantum of compensation has to be reduced stating that a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- granted as compensation is excessive.
5. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in view of the following decisions of the Apex Court.
6. The Apex Court in Manju Devi and another Musafir Paswan and another reported in 2005 ACJ 99 = 2005(1) TAC 609(SC), for the death of a 13 years boy by adopting “15” multiplier granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation.
7. Further, The Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – vs. – Satender reported in A.I.R. 2007 Supreme Court 324 determined the award at Rs.1,80,000/- in respect of a 9 year old child. Paragraph 10 to 13 reads thus:-
” In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child’s life time. But this will not necessarily bar the parent’s claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents’ establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. V. Jenkins (1913) AC 1, and Lord Atkinson said thus:
“…. all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them.” (See Lata Wadhwa and Ors. V. State of Bihar and Ors. (2001(8) SCC 197).
11. This Court in Lata Wadhwa’s case (supra) while computing compensation made distinction between deceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10 years and age group of 10 to 15 years.
12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of mathematical computation.
13. Applying the principles indicated in Jasbir Kaur’s case (supra) to the facts of the present case, we think award of a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- would meet the ends of justice. The same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till payment is made. Payment shall be made within a period of three months from today. Amounts, if any, already paid shall be adjusted from the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,80,000/-“.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
PAL
8. Considering the above decisions of the Apex Court, and the year of accident in this case which is 2003, the award of the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation to the parents, is just and reasonable and does not call for any reduction. The accident in this case happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2007. Hence, the interest granted at 7.5% is confirmed.
9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks’ time to deposit the balance amount and is granted. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as per the award of the Tribunal.
Index:No Internet:yes 18.12.2008 PAL To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Villupuram CMA No. 4006 of 2008 DT.15.12.2008